[maxelson]

The State of the Union is an opportunity for the President to rally
Americans, but toward what? Throughout our history Americans have spoken in
two distinct ways about what we owe one another as members of same society.
In different periods, one view of citizenship predominates over the other.

The first is the language of shared sacrifice -- of honor, duty, and
patriotism. We're asked to rise above selfishness and honor the common good.
We are in this together, and can survive and prosper only to the extent we
dedicate ourselves to the public interest. Whether barn raisings or quilting
bees, town meetings or school committees, volunteer fire departments or soup
kitchens, we celebrate that which binds us together. America is the land of
public spiritedness.

The ideal of shared sacrifice arises especially in times of war or national
economic crisis such as the Great Depression. In the aftermath of World War
II, few questioned that the very rich should pay a high proportion of their
incomes in taxes, or that every young man should be eligible for the draft.
It was thought unseemly for corporate executives to earn vast multiples of
the pay of average workers, and shameful for corporations to disregard the
public interest in favor of shareholder returns. "The job of management,"
declared Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey in a 1951
address typical of the era, "is to maintain an equitable balance among the
claims of ... stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large."
Government's purpose, likewise, was to act on behalf of the nation as a
whole. Democracy was thought to be the means by which we discovered the
common good, and summoned the fortitude to achieve it.

The other language is that of individual opportunity and personal ambition.
Here, our first responsibility as citizens is to do all we can for ourselves
and our families. By working hard and striving toward our own private goals,
we exemplify the benefits of liberty. In seeking to maximize the our own
wellbeing, we contribute to a strong economy. Within this ideal of
citizenship, the common good is largely the sum of these personal efforts;
and the nation's wellbeing depends primarily on individual enterprise.
Corporations should do everything they can to maximize profits. Indeed, the
competitive race invigorates all our institutions. Meanwhile, the assumed
purpose of government is to maximize individual well-being; citizens are
consumers of public services, analogous to consumers in the private sector.
Democracy is thought of as a process for reconciling competing claims.

The ideal of personal ambition gains prominence in times of peace and
prosperity. The norm of shared sacrifice becomes less powerful because there
's less agreement about the common good and less urgency to achieving it.

The past few decades of comparative peace and prosperity have witnessed a
gradual decline in the language and ideal of the common good and a
corresponding increase in the ideal of personal ambition. By the 1990s the
public-spirited heroes of the "Greatest Generation" had been supplanted by
the entrepreneurial heroes of the new economy. Few thought it unseemly for
CEOs to earn four hundred times the wages of average workers, for
corporations to deny any responsibilities to the broad public, or for radio
commentators to tell listeners income taxes are confiscatory ("it's your
money!"). The era of big government was over, Bill Clinton assured us, to
thundering applause.

We now find ourselves in an awkward age, poised between these two
conceptions of American citizenship. The legacy of the 1980s and 90s lives
on, still giving prominence to opportunity and ambition. The President
argues unabashedly in favor of more tax breaks for the rich which, he says,
will motivate them save and invest and thus spur economic growth. That the
rich are already far richer than ever in history, that the gap between them
and most other Americans is wider than it has been in sixty years, and that
the gap will widen even further as a result of this initiative is assumed to
be beside the point.

Yet the new challenges of the 21st century call for shared sacrifice. More
than 100,000 Americans are in now the Persian Gulf, awaiting further orders.
Within the next months it is quite possible that some of them will be called
to risk their lives for their country. A few -- let us pray only a few --
will make what has been called the supreme sacrifice. This war may not be
brief. Surely an occupation of Iraq, if it comes to that, could continue for
many years.

We are also called to protect ourselves against terrorism within our
borders. The job is far larger and more subtle than can be accomplished by a
new federal department alone. It will require widespread vigilance by
American citizens. We will have to join together not only against terrorism
but also against any corresponding erosion of civil liberties, undermining
of public trust, and unleashing of prejudice and fear.

There is, finally, a distinct possibility that the American economy --
struggling under the multiple stresses of job losses, international
uncertainty, mounting debt (personal, government, international), and a
global slowdown -- will stall, or worse. Many Americans may find themselves
in economic peril. If so, a central question will be how to spread the
burdens. Here again we will be called upon to examine what we owe one
another.

If we are to meet these new challenges, the ideal of personal ambition may
have to give way, once again, to the ideal of shared sacrifice. The cohesion
and moral authority of the nation will depend on it. Our leaders will have
to speak the language of civic virtue. As in previous times of crisis, we
will be less tolerant of unbridled individualism and ambition, of
conspicuous consumption, of greed, and of corporate disavowals of
responsibility. In ways large and small, we will be summoned to act together
on behalf of the common good.

[daimoni]

.

[Millennium]

Frankly, I don't believe there is such a thing as the "common good". There are things which make it easier for personal ambition to flourish, but that's as close as it gets.

Of course, I also believe that coerced forfeiture does not equal sacrifice, and thus this compulsory "shared sacrifice" is little more than totalitarianism muttered under one's breath. And that, my friend, goes against the core ideas of freedom.

With freedom comes responsibility for one's self. The problem comes when people try to separate these, or replace responsibilitty with one's self with forced responsibility for others. That's something which can only be taken on voluntarily. And yes, taking that responsibility on, if one is able, is a good and moral thing to do. But last I checked, it was agreed almost universally that legislating morality was a Bad Thing.

[maxelson]

Yeah, Millenium. Seems you and I have had that discussion before. And I am not sure "legislating morality" was the point, here.

FWIW, dai, not may paper. I am witholding authorship for the time being.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by maxelson:
Yeah, Millenium. Seems you and I have had that discussion before. And I am not sure "legislating morality" was the point, here.

Sure it is. If sacrifice for this so-called "common good" is a moral thing to do, then mandating it by law is legislating morality, is it not?

[maxelson]

OK. Apparently I am being a tad thick. Could you pull out the red pen and point specifically to where you see this? I'm missing it.

[daimoni]

.

[pooka]

Originally posted by daimoni:
God how I hate the "It is my right to be an assklown - screw everyone else. Me first." mentality behind Libritarians.

Uhhhhh, it is my right to be an assclown. Screw everyone else. Me and my own first.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by pooka:
Uhhhhh, it is my right to be an assclown. Screw everyone else. Me and my own first.

I see you're vigorously excersizing your right to be an assklown. Here it is folks! That which makes this country great!
POOP! POOP! We got POOP HERE!

[Saetre]

Originally posted by daimoni:
God how I hate the "It is my right to be an assklown - screw everyone else. Me first." mentality behind Libritarians.

God I hate that "It's my right to enslave humanity in a vice-grip of lies and coercion" mentality behind socialists/democrats/republicans.

[daimoni]

.

[maxelson]

Look. As long as I have the title, I might as well check... yep. Poop.

I am pretty sure that "right to enslave humanity in a vice-grip of lies and coercion" is non party oriented. It is an equal opportunity employer and is pretty much practiced by... hmm... lessee... humanity.

[thunderous_funker]

The "common good" is the foundation of society. Without willing participants, without voluntary morality, there is no society.

These are the foundation principles of this country. The ideas of Locke & Voltaire. The idea of social contract.

The social contract goes both ways, as eloquently stated in Max's original post.

May I humbly suggest that anyone wishing to opt out of the "common good", get the fvck out and stay out. Good luck and good riddence. You are of absolutely no use to society. In fact, you are detriment to it.

Please go fend for yourself elsewhere and stop using the resources provided you by the shared sacrifice of the rest of us.

[Timo]

Folks are always good about extolling the virtues of freedom without emphasizing the responsibiliites of freedom.

"But...but...that's not...freedom!"

Welcome to the real world.

[GoGoReggieXPowars]

Agreed, Timo. Freedom = responsibility. The Libertarian ideal, much like the Communist one, is mired completely in rationalist thought, that either The System will save us (Communism) or The System will destroy us (Liberarianism). Yes, it all seems so logical and good on paper, but will never fly in the real world because PEOPLE AREN'T ROBOTS.
Communism? Nice idea, but have you ever really tried to outlaw ambition with any sort of success? No freedom there, mon amis.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
Agreed, Timo. Freedom = responsibility. The Libertarian ideal, much like the Communist one, is mired completely in rationalist thought, that either The System will save us (Communism) or The System will destroy us (Liberarianism). Yes, it all seems so logical and good on paper, but will never fly in the real world because PEOPLE AREN'T ROBOTS.
Communism? Nice idea, but have you ever really tried to outlaw ambition with any sort of success? No freedom there, mon amis.

You are the first (and hopefully last) person to interpret any part of this discussion to be about communism. It isn't.

[pooka]

I have no idea what you guys are rambling on about. I tried reading the topic starter but I fell asleep six times. Crap is too long.

I can be an assclown if I like, right? I didn't say me and my own only. Me and my own are my primary drive. Not you. Everyone else gets the leftovers. Be happy.

[Face Ache]

OPRAH FOR PRESIDENT!

[Nicko]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
You are the first (and hopefully last) person to interpret any part of this discussion to be about communism. It isn't.

I thought it sounded more like socialism.

Am I warm?

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by Nicko:
I thought it sounded more like socialism.

Am I warm?

I don't think the ideas of social contract, cooperation, solidarity, shared sacrifice, etc dictate one and only one possible economic system.

As Max's post shows, these were clearly high priority ideals in America once upon a time. Historically, America's most radical socialist programs have probably been Farm Subsidies, Medicare, and Social Security.

That is to say, I think The Red Menace has never been much of a real threat here.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Frankly, I don't believe there is such a thing as the "common good". There are things which make it easier for personal ambition to flourish, but that's as close as it gets.

Of course, I also believe that coerced forfeiture does not equal sacrifice, and thus this compulsory "shared sacrifice" is little more than totalitarianism muttered under one's breath. And that, my friend, goes against the core ideas of freedom.

With freedom comes responsibility for one's self. The problem comes when people try to separate these, or replace responsibilitty with one's self with forced responsibility for others. That's something which can only be taken on voluntarily. And yes, taking that responsibility on, if one is able, is a good and moral thing to do. But last I checked, it was agreed almost universally that legislating morality was a Bad Thing.

OMG, that's just beautiful. And correct. There is a common good, though, it's just stuck in the shadow of the free-rider problem.

For the record regarding the post-starter, it is well written but factually incorrect on many many levels. More propaganda.

[finboy]

Originally posted by GoGoReggieXPowars:
PEOPLE AREN'T ROBOTS.

No, but GROUPS OF PEOPLE are. That's how temporary Communism works -- promise folks what they want from some other person's pocket, and they'll bite. Until they realize that the next bite comes from them.

You're right about Communism -- incentives are everything. After the wealth is looted, it's only individuals that can make a difference.

[shanraghan]

::head spins::

Augh... is this place a toilet?

Hm... individual opportunity versus sacrifice... well... since when was there no such thing as balance? The one, little problem I have with talking about group sacrifice at this moment is pretty much embodied in this question: "Sacrifice, what, for the sake of what?" Sacrificing freedom for preservation? Sacrificing personal security for so-called "national security"? I don't see the urgent need for sacrifice yet. It seems that the 'sacrifices' we're making are a direct result of overzealous and unwise decisions, as a cursory observation. Starting a war on decreased revenue? Giving people a tax break, but eating away at their constitutional rights? Sometimes we need to make 'sacrifices' to go forward, but these sacrifices seem to me to be in vain.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by finboy:
OMG, that's just beautiful. And correct. There is a common good, though, it's just stuck in the shadow of the free-rider problem.

For the record regarding the post-starter, it is well written but factually incorrect on many many levels. More propaganda.

Specifics, please.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by finboy:

For the record regarding the post-starter, it is well written but factually incorrect on many many levels. More propaganda.

Care to elaborate?

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by finboy:
There is a common good, though, it's just stuck in the shadow of the free-rider problem.

One of my favorite anecdotes is about the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. He was being observed by a journalist, giving change to a beggar. The journalist went up to him and asked him if he wasn't aware that there was a serious problem with a lot of beggars being frauds and living off charity when the could be working. Williams response was:" If that's the case, let it be on his conscience, not mine."

Very wise words.

[chip-douglas]

Half truths + common sense + preying upon what people want to here = good editorial. (Is there a way to make a "does not equal?")

Where to start? The basic premise for this argument has been going on for over 2 centuries. I doubt we'll solve it here. But that isn't to say that we can't talk about it.

If only our founding fathers had been even more selfish than they were and had the foresight of legalese and crap legislation, then maybe the constitution could have made all these things more clear.

Unfortunately, the framers disagreed with each other as vehemently as we do today. What does that mean?....It means everything is opinion. Majority rule....minority rights you say? Bullchit. That might have been an idea, but once it was written; time to find the loopholes. As soon as we had a working gov't, ways were thought of to get around what the common man wanted. Cynical? Maybe, but that's life. You want an opinion, then stop wasting your money and get rich. That truly is one thing that anyone CAN do, but that's a different subject.

I almost bought into that idealistic argument until this paragraph:

The ideal of shared sacrifice arises especially in times of war or national
economic crisis such as the Great Depression. In the aftermath of World War
II, few questioned that the very rich should pay a high proportion of their
incomes in taxes, or that every young man should be eligible for the draft.
It was thought unseemly for corporate executives to earn vast multiples of
the pay of average workers, and shameful for corporations to disregard the
public interest in favor of shareholder returns. "The job of management,"
declared Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey in a 1951
address typical of the era, "is to maintain an equitable balance among the
claims of ... stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large."
Government's purpose, likewise, was to act on behalf of the nation as a
whole. Democracy was thought to be the means by which we discovered the
common good, and summoned the fortitude to achieve it.

"The job of management,"
declared Frank Abrams, chairman of Standard Oil of New Jersey in a 1951
address typical of the era, "is to maintain an equitable balance among the
claims of ... stockholders, employees, customers, and the public at large."

OK, quote a monopoly to talk about fairness to all. And Bill Gates said MSXP would be free for all for the common good. Somehow years later, he was the richest man on the planet. This entire editorial is built on humans being ideal creatures with ideals being towards the betterment of man. There's a religious parallel to this, but once again, that's another story not worth getting into.

[maxelson]

But, at the core of it all and no matter what vehicle one uses to get there, are we not ALL idealists to some degree? In fact, I would add that these ideals would also be at the core of all of our conflicts.

Let me illuminate what I am trying to get across, here.
I am a cynic. True. I am basically a misanthrope. True.
GWBush. I don't care for him and I don't think that is a secret. I agree with 15% of what he says and does. I disagree with 50% and the remainder is benefit of the doubt because I am sure I don't understand the hows and whys and wherefores.
I HAVE to believe, however, that somewhere in there... SOMEWHERE, it is not about power or politics. SOMEWHERE in there, I have to believe that at some juncture it was all about ideals.
Ashcroft makes my skin crawl and my testicles shrink away like a threatened turtle, and yet there IS comfort in this: I KNOW that guy is working through his ideals- motivated by them. I despise his ideals as they are presented to me, but I cannot fault his apparent (to me) motivations.
I do believe that everyone here, when we discuss varying topics, get heated, depricate one another's beliefs, whatever, is driven by their own set of ideals.
What would be my own personal ideal? What Utopia? Well, in thinking on it through the softly thudding quagmire of a head cold, I would say it would include a society where people took responsibility for their own actions and, in doing so, also took on a sense of unencroaching responsibility for their fellow man. Think about it for a second. That covers an enormous amount of ground. When the above op ed piece discusses "shared sacrifice", THAT is what I see.

To close, I NEED to echo Timo's equasion: Freedom= Responsibility. Don't want to accept the latter, well then, you don't get the former.

[chip-douglas]

I 100% agree with your last post, but that isn't what the thread was about.

But, at the core of it all and no matter what vehicle one uses to get there, are we not ALL idealists to some degree? In fact, I would add that these ideals would also be at the core of all of our conflicts.

I would tend to agree with you. Although ALL is as big a word as never. My favorite to read is any compilation of Plato's Republic and other works. If only we could argue as civilly as the Greeks, minus the hemlock of course.

Freedom = Responsibility == true
So what was the first post about. It was a nice idealized and blindered view of what the world could be, but entirely unrealistic. I was only commenting on something I thought was ironic and propagandistic(if that's a word of course)
otherwise I totally agree with you.

My only question is are you advocating war or going against it. Or advocating our responsibility to do our part to ensure freedom(war)?

On closing this mess of a post, I'd like to say how convenient it is that no one remembers that we didn't go to war with China. That situation with our spy plane and captured Americans and Taiwan seems innocent now that we're all still alive, but I know many people that thought the world was almost over. I fear China more than Iraq, yet we're supposed to be afraid of one and maybe both. And still I can't wait to visit China. Are we really protecting ourselves or are we just being vigilant and protecting our own interests first? What would you expect of any country? Is it wrong for us to do that just because we are the most powerful country?

What does it say that you have nothing to fear from the strongest military country in the world and can say all the bad things you want? If the Italians(read Romans, whom I'll use as a republican example) heard things like that, well Veni, Vidi, Vici. But behold, what's this, we actually try to bring stability to the world. What was the last country we tried to take over or make a puppet of the USA?

To summarize, all we need to get the world on our side is to get France on our side. Bush needs to call up the President of France and tell him we're invading them tomorrow. Then France surrenders, we set up a puppet gov't like we should have been doing all along instead of appeasing all these long lost empires still trying to hold on to lost glories, and boom; We split Germany with Russia once again(screw Berlin this time, although airlift out the hot chicks or chucks for you alt. lifestyle peeps here) and we get to actually glass all the countries causing us problems. I can't believe Bush hasn't already thought of that one.[/sarcasm]

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:

FWIW, dai, not my paper. I am witholding authorship for the time being.

You never told us who wrote this.

[maxelson]

Ah, rog. I'm a-scared. I thought the piece had some nice merit to it. I liked the tone and message. I grooved on it. Knowing who the author was would, I thought, punch a different reaction. I wanted to see the response before cluing in to the author.
For example, the allegation of less than factual info. I wanted a specific reply prior to releasing the information.
Promoting non partisanism, as it were...

[daimoni]

.

[maxelson]

Aaaaaright. It was Robert Reich.

[scaught]

Originally posted by daimoni:
On pins and needles, I am.

The edge of my seat, as it were.

oh like you cant use google as well as i can.

the truth is out there.

[Sven G]

Originally posted by maxelson:
What would be my own personal ideal? What Utopia? Well, in thinking on it through the softly thudding quagmire of a head cold, I would say it would include a society where people took responsibility for their own actions and, in doing so, also took on a sense of unencroaching responsibility for their fellow man. Think about it for a second. That covers an enormous amount of ground. When the above op ed piece discusses "shared sacrifice", THAT is what I see.

To close, I NEED to echo Timo's equasion: Freedom= Responsibility. Don't want to accept the latter, well then, you don't get the former.

The problem, now, is: how could we reach such a (non-) state of things...? For example, one thing I could agree with, with the so-called "right-wingers", is that the individual is very important - but, then, not "their" ego-centered individual, but an individual who is - at the same time! - deeply interrelated with the social context (see also the so-called "left-wingers").

Personally, I think that something like Albert Camus' concept of "the individual in revolt" - anytime and anywhere, and in a profoundly social context, of course - could be a very good beginning...

[daimoni]

.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by maxelson:

... Knowing who the author was would, I thought, punch a different reaction. I wanted to see the response before cluing in to the author...

I understood why you withheld authorship. It's just that it's been a few days now and the thread didn't look like it was going to generate much more.

Anyway, the idea that the WWII generation shows us an example of concern for the common good is a little problematic. Jim Crow was a part of that generation too.

[maxelson]

Oh! Absolutely! I do not agree with this "greatest generation" thing... well, not to the extent some buy into it. Things were different. Not necessarily better or worse- but different.
Again, utilizing some more specific examples might have been better there.
Again, it was more the spirit of the piece that got me grooving.

[zigzag]

I think the column over-romanticizes the past somewhat - as roger notes, the "Greatest Generation" was not altogether virtuous - but national priorities do change over time, so as a rhetorical device I guess it has some validity.

Free-market types can be just as naive as the communists that they disdain. They think that government and common purpose can only be hindrances, forgetting that government has greased the skids of commerce from the beginning, that it's a symbiotic relationship, that it's a question of balance, not exclusivity. And the balance swings one way for a while, then the other, which is pretty much how life itself works.

Reagan, with some validity, readjusted the balance (rhetorically if not actually). The problem is when you have a whole generation of people who think that Capitalism is a political model, not just an economic model, who think that the public interest is an archaic concept and that only pansies worry about it. I think an argument can be made that the balance swung too far that way in the 90's and that we're now paying a price for it.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by maxelson
The President argues unabashedly in favor of more tax breaks for the rich which, he says, will motivate them save and invest and thus spur economic growth. That the rich are already far richer than ever in history, that the gap between them and most other Americans is wider than it has been in sixty years, and that the gap will widen even further as a result of this initiative is assumed to be beside the point.

Much of the passage was thought provoking, until the above quoted section, which takes a bashing to Bush and 'the rich'.

The tax cuts are not for 'the rich'. They are for those who pay taxes. It just so happens that the rich are the ones who pay the overwhelming majority of taxes in this nation (the top 50% of income-earning citizens pay 96% of the taxes). Also note that taxes were never meant to be an in-disguise income redistribution tool.

Who cares what the rich have? It's theirs, earned by them, managed by them, invested by them, saved by them. Many took great risks, made proper decisions, and worked countless hours to achieve their riches.

How much access to food, how many TVs, stereos, cars, refridgerators, ovens, etc. do the poor of other countries have? Access to health care? I used to live in a ghetto (actually a few), and compared to the majority of the world, our poor would be considered quite rich. Additionally, if it weren't for the decisions and investment of the rich over the years, conditions would ultimately be worse for the poor.

Other than my disagreement there, the author's prose is quite nice.

[maxelson]

Well, the author IS an economist... and by most accounts, a damned good one ( I suppose that, too, depends on your side of the fence which is why I originally witheld authorship).
Ooooo. Spacefreak. You used the word "earned". Yeah, sometimes it is. Sometimes, not so much.

Hey, it is just a view. Just a way of looking at the disparity between the classes (of course, there IS). It is a political philosophy.

Again, I was looking at the spirit. I just happen to agree with the single point, true, and think it is a good example in support of the argument.

Oh. And if the rich are to have such an impact on our economy, good or ill, active or passive, well, then I care what they have... and of course, again, depending on what side of the fence you hang, some would also say that it is the middle classes which drive the economy FAR more than the rich and in many more ways.

[thunderous_funker]

Wealth concentration does NOT benefit the economy. That has been the flaw in the "supply-side" theorists all along.

History has demonstrated that concentrating wealth in fewer and fewer hands and further rewarding those who concentrate wealth does NOT result in "trickle down". Not even close.

Even some of the orignal architects have come out and admitted that the experiement failed.

At this point, anyone arguing for supply-side is guilty of either gross ignorance or calculated class-warfare. I just don't see how it can be viewed otherwise.

Generation X is the first generation of Americans that are less well of than their parents.

It's the _flow_ of money that matters, not the concentration of it. You have to put money in the hands of those who will spend not stash. That's where the rhetoric of tax-cuts gets all muddled. Of course it's wise to give people back their money. The real tricky part is deciding which people.

In this age of rapidly dissappearing manufacturing and other good paying "blue collar" jobs, massive expansion of the working poor, gross inequality, and devastating trade deficits how can we continue to seriously argue that pouring more money on top is really going to benefit those on bottom?

There is more money in the economy than ever before, but it travels in ever diminishing circles. Concentrating instead of flowing. How else can you explain increased scarcity in times of such apparent abundance?[/rant]

At any rate, I really like the sentiment of the original peice. I believe very strongly in the power of cooperation. I believe very strongly in the responsibiliy side of the freedom equation. I believe very strongly that social contract is immutably binding to both parties otherwise it fails miserably.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

What's the big deal that Clinton's labor secretary Robert Reich wrote that?

Thunderous, I'd really love to know how anyone just 'stashes' wealth to the point it does no one else any good. Seriously. That's actually DAMNED hard to do. I really don't know of many people who keep their dough in a mattress, but I suppose there are an eccentric few. Lousy return though.

Like clockwork, I knew it couldn't be too long before the perpetual motion machine of worry-warting over who makes what and who pays what in taxes got spinning full steam ahead again. If only we could harvest all that gas- who'd need the Middle East's supply?

My personal idea of the 'common good' relating to the specific issue of �wealth� is more people minding their own financial business and nosing out of everyone else�s.

That combined with dropping the incredibly self-serving, self-righteous FANTASY that people who are constantly over-nosy about other people's earnings/tax burden/etc. are the only people who care about their fellow man, do anything to help their fellowman, and therefore are the only ones able to dictate what the 'common good' is.

Wealth- lack of it, or the presence of it, has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's humanity. Not in any way shape nor form- outside of the self-righteous minds of the anointed few that is. Maybe someday the self-righteous will arrive at that simple understanding and relax a little bit. I'll keep up hope!

[Sven G]

Anyway, IMHO, the concept of "common good" shouldn't be based on economy and finance, but on more ethical motivations; and also the idea of a "social contract" is rather obsolete (besides being rather "formal", and therefore - lacking human substance - doomed to failure, in the long run), in a context where everyone could first of all feel an ethical motivation to voluntarily contribute to that same "common good" (as the common good also tends to be the individual good - at least for caring and loving persons)...

[Sven G]

- (database error again!)

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE:
What's the big deal that Clinton's labor secretary Robert Reich wrote that?

Thunderous, I'd really love to know how anyone just 'stashes' wealth to the point it does no one else any good. Seriously. That's actually DAMNED hard to do. I really don't know of many people who keep their dough in a mattress, but I suppose there are an eccentric few. Lousy return though.

Like clockwork, I knew it couldn't be too long before the perpetual motion machine of worry-warting over who makes what and who pays what in taxes got spinning full steam ahead again. If only we could harvest all that gas- who'd need the Middle East's supply?

My personal idea of the 'common good' relating to the specific issue of �wealth� is more people minding their own financial business and nosing out of everyone else�s.

That combined with dropping the incredibly self-serving, self-righteous FANTASY that people who are constantly over-nosy about other people's earnings/tax burden/etc. are the only people who care about their fellow man, do anything to help their fellowman, and therefore are the only ones able to dictate what the 'common good' is.

Wealth- lack of it, or the presence of it, has absolutely NOTHING to do with one's humanity. Not in any way shape nor form- outside of the self-righteous minds of the anointed few that is. Maybe someday the self-righteous will arrive at that simple understanding and relax a little bit. I'll keep up hope!

Perhaps the most obvious example of stashed wealth is demonstrated by the current rash of tax scandals. Not only are major corporations sheltering their wealth outside of the country, but the Officers of corporations are doing the same. Tax evasion has reached epic porportions according to some analysts.

I'm also amazed to hear Bush talk about the wealthy getting back so they can "build factories" and create jobs. The manufacturing exodus of the last 2 decades says blatantly otherwise.

When Clinton boasted about all the millions of new jobs in the 90's, no one seemed to bother to notice what kind of jobs those were. They weren't high paying jobs with great benefits. They were McJobs. More Americans work McJobs than anything else. The top 3 employers outside of the government are fast food chains and temp agencies. The number of uninsured Americans is rising mostly because a lot of these new jobs don't offer benefits. There is also the matter of the underemployed. A widely ignored statistic when talking about the state of Labor in America. These are the people whose hours have been cut back to avoid providing them with full-time benefits. This number is also at an all time high.

All the while, productivily climbs. Americans are working harder for less than perhaps at any time previous.

Why do I keep derailing this thread onto economic justice? As was wisely pointed out previously, it's almost impossible to distinguish government from economy any more. It's a symbiotic relationship whether we like it or not.

Economic injustice leads to political injustice. Very few Americans retain any illusions about what "interests" matter most in the halls of government.

This is why we keep being "nosey" about who makes what. Envy might motivate some, but it's hardly the reason to care about such things. As our government becomes more and more representative of the interests of concentrated wealth and less and less about the interests of the majority, we've got a massive problem.

Inequality is unsustainable without violence. We can appeal to our government to intervene on the behalf of the majority, but that will still mean a type of violence will be done to the wealthy elite. They get the pinch. We can also appeal to people's sense of social conscience. The Great8 has been focused on this issue of late (since 9/11). Their position is unsustainable in the face of massive injustice and anger. They don't want to be the victims of greater violence so they are trying to agree on matters of morality and conscience to "give back" and create at least the appearance of social justice. I think the fact they are talking about it stands as a towering monument to the fact that inequality really is unsustainable without violence. They've realized that now.

That's why it matters. You can disdain the idea of the common good all you want, but don't complain if the revolution sweeps you under.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
[B]Perhaps the most obvious example of stashed wealth is demonstrated by the current rash of tax scandals. Not only are major corporations sheltering their wealth outside of the country, but the Officers of corporations are doing the same. Tax evasion has reached epic porportions according to some analysts.

Tax a person too high, and give 'em loopholes and *gasp* he'll evade you. All this goes back to the need for reforming the tax system, deciding on a fair amount, and eliminating the loopholes.

I'm also amazed to hear Bush talk about the wealthy getting back so they can "build factories" and create jobs. The manufacturing exodus of the last 2 decades says blatantly otherwise.

Again, what those 'wealthy' get back and what they do with it is their own business. And again, much as you obviously don't like to hear it, EACH and every one of those 'wealthy' has just as much say in what the 'common good' is, as you do. As Robert Reich does. As anyone does.

When Clinton boasted about all the millions of new jobs in the 90's, no one seemed to bother to notice what kind of jobs those were.

No argument that Clinton wouldn't have had a clue what type of jobs were created in the '90s, nor a thing to do with the creation of any of them. Which is actually a good thing.

Economic injustice leads to political injustice. Very few Americans retain any illusions about what "interests" matter most in the halls of government.

That�s true- p00nt@ng and puhlleeenty of it.

No, but seriously. I can only speak for myself. As someone firmly in the elite top 1% of taxpayers, when I got my phone call from Bush offering to return the favor for my help in electing him, the choices he gave me were:
1. A slice of the Iraqi oil deal
2. A timeshare in Afghanistan (I didn�t realize its potential future value at the time)
3. A really good insider price on Enron stock (this was before the collapse)
or
4. A gold plated toaster oven with "Thank ya! Signed, G.W." engraved on it.

I went for the toaster. Now I'm slappin' myself, 'cause that Iraqi oil deal thing is lookin' sa-weeet.

I also of course have G.W's private AIM screen name, so anytime I need a favor done and he happens to pop up on my Political Powerbrokers� buddy list, I drop 'em a request. (Yup, I asked for a tax break for me and my cronies� and got it!)


You're right though, few people know about these perks, but that's how it is for me, because my interests as a 1% matter more than most everyone else. Dems da breaks.

(P.S. the above was parody and all above-mentioned perks I actually haven't seen yet... something I�m still QUITE pissed about dammit! When exactly does the 1st Class govt. service kick-in anyhow?)

This is why we keep being "nosey" about who makes what. Envy might motivate some, but it's hardly the reason to care about such things. As our government becomes more and more representative of the interests of concentrated wealth and less and less about the interests of the majority, we've got a massive problem.

The 'majority needs to get out and vote. That's how they get listened-to by government. Nosing into who makes what doesn�t change that, that�s just a useless hobby for the off election seasons. If the majority shares your same values about �the common good� then they should get up off their fat arses and vote to express that.

But I�m reminded of the past national elections. Apologies to Bobby Reich, still no sale it seems!

Inequality is unsustainable without violence. We can appeal to our government to intervene on the behalf of the majority, but that will still mean a type of violence will be done to the wealthy elite. They get the pinch. We can also appeal to people's sense of social conscience. The Great8 has been focused on this issue of late (since 9/11). Their position is unsustainable in the face of massive injustice and anger. They don't want to be the victims of greater violence so they are trying to agree on matters of morality and conscience to "give back" and create at least the appearance of social justice. I think the fact they are talking about it stands as a towering monument to the fact that inequality really is unsustainable without violence. They've realized that now.

Whoa. You sort of lost me here. Just who is the big bad 'THEY� again in the above scenario? Has anyone bought the movie rights to this one yet?

Seriously, anyone wonder why I use the term self-righteous? What else would you call people who think that their ideas of �common good� or their views on who is �ultra wealthy� or deserves to be or not, or what the F ever are such unquestionable gospel that they can not only shove them down everyone else�s throat, but threaten violence in doing so? Sounds like exactly the (downright fanatical) totalitarianism that Millennium alluded to earlier.

And I�m really not sure what the 9/11 reference was. Care to explain how that date or any of the events of it figure in anything you�ve outlined above? I really did miss the connection. Also, not quite sure who The Great8 is. Sounds exciting though. Do they have uncanny super powers? Or is that just some fast food chain that hasn�t made it out west yet? I do apologize in advance for not being brushed up on my �Who�s who that�s taking over the world this week� dossier that I missed these guys.

Seriously though, care to provide some links, names, organizations, any proof to whatever this �revolution� is you�re talking about and who the actual participants are? I�d SERIOUSLY like to know who exactly you�re referring to, and what �violence� they�ve used to foist their ideas on others. If anything, that is quite interesting.

That's why it matters. You can disdain the idea of the common good all you want, but don't complain if the revolution sweeps you under.

Um, Ok.

No, seriously, you left out the parts about �repent sinner�, and all the stuff about �hellfire� and �damnation�.